CBS Sports: NFL 1983-Super Bowl 18-Los Angeles Raiders vs. Washington Redskins: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

On paper at least and the personal of both teams, Super Bowl 18 is definitely one of the best games you could ever have for a Super Bowl. Maybe only Super Bowl 13 with the Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers was a better matchup on paper and in talent and in coaching. Tom Flores, who was the Los Angeles Raiders head coach, really should be in the Hall of Fame. He had a great record in the 1980s and only Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs won more and they’re both in the Hall of Fame. This game should’ve been a 31-24, 28-24, 35-31 24-21, 21-17 type of game with the game going down to the last possession of the game.

But the Raiders looked as prepared and executed as well as any team has ever played in the Super Bowl. On offense, defense and special teams. They had the Redskins down cold and made all the big plays in the game. When the Redskins would try something interesting or different to catch the Raiders off guard like the infamous screen pass late in the first half with the Raiders up 14-3, the Raiders pick off the pass for a touchdown. And and take a 21-3 lead into the first half, instead of it being a close game. And the Redskins looked like they had the momentum back in the second half and march down the field for a touchdown, to make it 21-9, the Raiders block the extra point.

The Raiders not only blocked the Redskins extra point attempt in the second half, but they march down the field for their own touchdown to take their biggest lead of the game at 28-9 midway through the third quarter. Tom Flores could go into the Hall of Fame from his Super Bowl 18 coaching job alone. The Redskins just looked sluggish and unprepared. They went into this game with one game plan and either didn’t figure out early enough that wasn’t going to work, or didn’t know how to adjust. Which was strange considering Joe Gibbs is the master of adjustments and retooling.

ABC Sports: NFL 1983- Week 7 MNF-Washington Redskins @ Green Bay Packers: Full Game

Source:Newton Minnowowski- The Redskins, taking on the Green Bay Packers, on ABC's Monday Night Football, in 1983.

Source:The New Democrat

"1983 Oct 17 Washington @ Green Bay"

From Newton Minnowowski

Source:NFL Films- The Redskins vs the Green Bay Packers, on ABC's Monday Night Football, in 1983.

The Green Bay Packers were the definition of mediocrity in the 1980s. And it wasn’t that they were always average or middle of the road. But they would have great streaks and look like they’re returning as a contender and championship team that they were when they dominated the 1960s. And they would follow that up with really bad streaks and lose to bad teams and look like 5-11 or 4-12 team.

The Packers had two winning seasons in the 1980s. 1982 and 89 and 4 8-8 seasons, which is the definition of a mediocre team. They would play their best games against good teams, like the Redskins especially in prime time and at Lambeau Field. And then they would lose to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Detroit Lions. Or some other team that was pretty bad back then.

The Redskins, defending Super Bowl champions in 1983, 5-1 at this point with a five winning streak after losing to the Dallas Cowboys week 1. Looking to get back to the Super Bowl and repeat and had the team to do it. And of course only the San Francisco 49ers won more games and Super Bowls than the Redskins in the 1980s.

So this was a matchup of one of the premier teams of the NFL in the Redskins who were great in 1983 and had a great decade in the 1980s. Against a Packers team that couldn’t figure out if they were pretty good and back as a contender and champion in the NFC Central. Or were they 4-12, 5-11 team, sharing last place with the Lions and Buccaneers. And they generally settled for mediocrity instead.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Communism on The March

Source: Bob Parker- Longtime CBS News anchor Edward R. Murrow.

Source:The New Democrat

"45/85 Part 3 an ABC News television documentary. It aired on September 18, 1985. The three-hour program combined archive film and television footage with new interviews to document post-World War II history, focusing especially on the Cold War. Hosted by Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings. Birth of Israel, baby boom, German Blockade, Red scare, Hess vs. Chambers."

From Bob Parker

Without the creation of NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is responsible for the security of North America and Europe and Europe primarily, Germany would’ve been occupied by either the United States or Soviet Union. And perhaps still occupied by America or Russia today unless some other agreement or arrangement was put in place to protect Germany from some new authoritarian regime coming him to replace the Nazis.

But NATO was created, but instead of having a United Federal Germany, Germany was split up with a Federal Republic in the West and a Communist Republic in the East. Until they reunified in 1989 and now there’s one Federal Republic of Germany. That is the economic and perhaps now even the diplomatic power of Europe. With the fourth largest economy in the world and the only large European state with a strong vibrant economy today. All of the other big Euro states are dealing with high debts, deficits, recessions, high unemployment and growing poverty.

What NATO did along with the European Union and the Marshall Plan was give Europe a chance to breathe and catch its breath and rebuild themselves. Without having to worry about some new civil war breaking out or some new authoritarian regime emerging in Western Europe and give the Europe the ability to develop. And not just rebuild themselves from World War II, but develop themselves and develop their economies and diplomatic relations, people and rebuild their militaries.

And what happened as a result was a free social democratic Europe in the West that was thriving. And a totalitarian, authoritarian, suffocating, Russia in the East. Where people would literally escape from their own countries.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Start of The Cold War

Source: Bob Parker- ABC News anchor Ted Koppel.

Source:The New Democrat

What British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was talking about when he called for the need for a North Atlantic Alliance that would fight against the spread of communism in Europe, became NATO in 1949. The North Atlantic Alliance between North America and Europe. Where they would combine some of their forces to prevent a Russian invasion of Western Europe from the east. But that was just part of protecting Europe from an Russian invasion. The first part was the so-called Marshall Plan, named after U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall. Which was a large economic aid package for Western Europe to rebuild those states.

Post World War II America and Europe we get the Cold War, United Nations, NATO and Europe does something very clever with creating the European Union. That would try to promote the economic well-being of Democratic Europe, as well as foreign policy interests. The EU gets looked down upon now, but for the most part has served Democratic Europe very well in promoting economic development and trade inside of Europe and exporting European products outside of Europe. And keeping Europe strong during most of the Cold War so Russia would be crazy to try to invade them.

America and Russia were basically still allies, or at the very least partners up to the creation of NATO in the late 1940s. American President Harry Truman said that Russian President Joe Stalin was someone he could do business with. Sort of sounds like a foolish statement now, but they worked very well together in seeing that Nazism was defeated in Europe and especially in Germany. But thanks to NATO, the European Union and America emerging as the liberal democratic superpower that it was then and still is today, we haven’t had another World War since.
Source:Bob Parker

The Onion: 'Indiana Governor Insists Religious Freedom Law Has Nothing to do With Thing it Explicitly Intended to do'

Source:The Onion- ABC News anchor George Stephanopolous interviewing Governor Mike Pence (Republican,Indiana)

Source:The New Democrat

If I’m a governor of a state like Indiana, is passing laws to cut back on tourism and economic revenue really something that I would be interested in doing? Forget about me, because you could use anyone as an example for this. I mean what does Indiana have outside of Indianapolis, the Indianapolis 500 and a good NFL team and a good NBA team. Unless you love college basketball and auto racing why would you go to Indiana? To see how long to takes to get mugged, beaten, raped or murdered in Gary. Maybe go to a Notre Dame football game. But you’re a fan of Notre Dame like part of the alumni, you hate Notre Dame! And Notre Dame only plays six home games every year.

I don’t say these things to put Indiana down. But they do have a lot Christian fundamentalists who are stuck in the 1800s and actually still believe it is the 1800s. Because they don’t believe in calendars or anything. And that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, let alone work. And that gays are terrorists and not just people who are attracted to their gender instead of the opposite sex. And that pre-marital sex should be not just be a crime, but punishable by death. Except for these small factors, I’m sure Indiana is a great place to live. Unless you’re gay, or practice a non-Christian religion, perhaps come from another country, or even state.

You would think any state house worth its salt would have an office or at least someone in charge of gauging the economic impact of laws that the legislature passes and the Governor signs. That seems like commonsense anyway and Indiana does have very good schools there. Like Notre Dame and Indiana. So you would think there would be somewhere there to tell Governor Mike Pence, “look Governor, if you sign this law, we may see boycotts of our fair state. And as a result lose some serious tax revenue. Because business’s and other states who don’t look down at homosexuality, marriage or otherwise won’t want to be associated with a state that they see as discriminatory.”

And maybe Governor Pence had that person like a state economist and perhaps economics professors at one of their fine schools tell him those things. And Governor Pence said, “you know what, homosexuality is a sin! That must be wiped out! As Michelle Bachmann said it is a threat to our national security and that includes Indiana. We don’t want dem folk here and we are going to wipe them out. Which is more important than whether business’s and other states want to do business in our state.” No, I’m not saying that Governor Pence actually said that. Well used those words exactly, but he does represent a lot of people who feel that way. And comes from that wing of the Republican Party.

Lyle Denniston: Did The Founders Want Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices?

Source:The New Democrat

Damn! I found something that I agree with Mike Huckabee on. And perhaps tomorrow I’ll find something that I agree with Michael Moore on, but don’t hold your breath. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but a U.S. Justice in many ways is just as powerful as a U.S. Senator on a lot of things. U.S. Justice’s whether they are supposed to or not, can literally rewrite laws and say this is constitutional and that is not. They did that with the Affordable Care Act in 2012, to use as an example. They can also throw laws out and say this is good and this is bad. And not just to Congress and the President, but state and local laws as well.

U.S. Justice’s have a lot of power and responsibility and yet they’re the only federal officials that have guaranteed job security for the rest of their lives. Just as long as they don’t officially break the law and get impeached and convicted by Congress. And yet they have no one to report to that holds them accountable. They have all of that power and no one to say, you’re doing a good or bad job and they should continue to work, or its time for them to step down and put a fresh face on the court. Here’s an old saying, but it is as true today as it was when it was said the first time. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why should U.S. Justices’s get lifetime job security? Why should they have something that no one else in the country has, unless you live in a state where state and local judges are lifetime appointees as well? I’m not calling for turning the U.S. Supreme Court into a political branch and having Justice’s running for election and reelection. I think that would be very dangerous and turning the court into another political body and perhaps debating society. Where a lot of very important issues wouldn’t get decided, because Justices’s don’t want to make tough political calls one way or another. And besides we already see that anyway where Justice’s tend to make calls that are already supported by their political party.

I’m also not saying that U.S. Justices’s should only be able to serve a certain amount of years and terms. Because again if They are qualified to serve and the President still wants them there, the President should be allowed to reappoint that Justice. And I just lead into what I would do. Give each Justice lets say six-year terms. And then the President would have to decide to reappoint that Justice or replace that person with someone else. And the same thing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Make Justices like everyone else, work hard and be productive and even fight for their jobs. To get them to give the best service and judgment that they possibly can.

The Intelligent Channel: Alex Cherian: Jayne Mansfield On Visiting U.S. Troops in Vietnam (1967)

Source:The Intelligent Channel- Jayne Mansfield was never afraid of being too cute, even oversees.

Source:The New Democrat

“Archivist Alex Cherian presents a highly emotional 1967 film clip of actress Jayne Mansfield returning home from a goodwill tour of U.S. troops in South Vietnam. Clip is copyright Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. Special thanks to Pat Patton and KRON-TV for helping make this material publicly accessible. For more info, visit the San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive at:SFSU." 

From The Intelligent Channel

It’s great to see the human sides of great Hollywood celebrities and entertainers that Jayne Mansfield was (even if it was for just a brief period) because thanks to their handlers and themselves we generally only see them at their best. Meaning their strongest, that is when they are sober and not in trouble, but living well and staying out of trouble. But they are humans just as well who aren’t always at their strongest. And visiting troops in a military hospital during a war could break anyone down. And leave them with memories that they’ll never forget because of the injures that they’ve seen at the hospital.

Jayne Mansfield talking about an American troop who was twenty-five and I guess about to lose his leg if he hadn’t already lost it. That troop wasn’t the only twenty-five year old soldier who lost a leg in the Vietnam War. And I imagine this soldier survived this war. Unlike a hundred-thousand or so American troops who didn’t in that war.

You can be against the war, but still support your troops. People who didn’t choose to go over there in many cases. Who were drafted, but ended up surviving the experience in good shape physically. Or coming away with serious injuries, or simply not making it out Vietnam alive.

I don’t know how Jayne thought about the Vietnam War, or if she thought anything about it to be honest with you. She wasn’t known as a Hollywood political activist (to put it mildly) unlike Jayne Fonda who is perhaps the most famous Hollywood political activist of all-time. But to see her go over there and support all of those young American men and women who in many cases weren’t there by choice, because they were drafted into the military, is pretty impressive. This is something that she didn’t have to do. Nor did Raquel Welch when she went over in the late 60s as well to entertain them. And she deserves a lot of credit for that.